Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-688nx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-09T13:33:23.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weird past tense forms*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Fei Xu  and
Steven Pinker
Fei Xu*
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Steven Pinker*
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
*
Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania, 3401 Walnut Street, Suite 400C, Philadelphia, PA 19104–6228fei@lines.cis.upenn.edu
E10-016, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139steve@psyche.mit.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is often assumed that children go through a stage in which they systematically overapply irregular past tense patterns to inappropriate verbs, as in wipe-wope, bring-brang, trick-truck, walk-has walken. Such errors have been interpreted both as reflecting over-use of minor grammatical rules (e.g. ‘change i to a’), and as reflecting the operation of a connectionist pattern associator network that superimposes and blends patterns of various degrees of generality. But the actual rate, time course, and nature of these errors have never been documented. We analysed 20,000 past tense and participle usages from nine children in the CHILDES database, looking for overapplications of irregular vowel-change patterns, as in brang, blends, as in branged, productive suffixations of -en, as in walken, gross distortions, as in mail-membled, and double-suffixation, as in walkeded. These errors were collectively quite rare; children made them in about two tenths of one per cent of the opportunities, and with few stable patterns: the errors were not predominantly word-substitutions, did not occur predominantly with irregular stems, showed no consistency across verbs or ages, and showed no clear age trend. Most (though not all) of the errors were based closely on existing irregular verbs; gross distortions never occurred. We suggest that both rule-theories and connectionist theories have tended to overestimate the predominance of such errors. Children master irregular forms quite accurately, presumably because irregular forms are just a special case of the arbitrary sound-meaning pairings that define words, and because children are good at learning words.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , October 1995 , pp. 531 - 556
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

[*]

This research was supported by NIH Grant HD 18381 and NSF Grant BNS 91–09766 to the second author, and by the McDonnell—Pew Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at MIT. We thank Gary Marcus for comments, and Michael Ullman and Marie Coppola for technical assistance.

References

REFERENCES

Adams, S. (1938). Analysis of verb forms in the speech of young children, and their relation to the language learning process. Journal of Experimental Education 7, 141–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berko, J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word 14, 150–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1982). Reorganizational process in lexical and syntactic development. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In Hayes, J. R. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (1983) Morphology: a study of the relation between meaning and form. Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. & Moder, C. L. (1983). Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59, 251–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. & Slobin, D. I. (1982). Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language 58, 265–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cazden, C. B. (1966). The acquisition of noun and verb inflections. Child Development 39, 433–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, A. F. (1906). Preterite forms, etc., in the language of English-speaking children. Modern Language Notes 21, 42–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., Rothweiler, M., Woest, A. & Marcus, G. F. (1992). Regular and irregular inflection in the acquisition of German noun plurals. Cognition 45, 225–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daugherty, K. & Seidenberg, M. (1992). Rules or connections? The past tense revisited. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S. & Reich, P. (1980). Toward a unified model of slips of the tongue. In Fromkin, V. (ed.), Errors in linguistic performance: slips of the tongue, ear, pen, and hand. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fletcher, P. (1985) A child's learning of English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haber, L. (1975). Muzzy theory. Proceedings of the 11th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Mohanan, K. P. (1985). Segmental phonology of modern English. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 57–116.Google Scholar
Kim, J. J., Marcus, G. F., Pinker, S., Hollander, M. & Coppola, M. (1994). Sensitivity of children's inflection to morphological structure. Journal of Child Language 21, 173–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). Lexical phonology and morphology. In Yang, I. S. (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hansin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. & Menn, L. (1977). On the acquisition of phonology. In Macnamara, J. (ed.), Language learning and thought. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kuczaj, S. A. (1978). Children's judgements of grammatical and ungrammatical irregular past tense verbs. Child Development 49, 319–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ling, C. X. & Marinov, M. S. (1993). Answering the connectionist challenge: a symbolic model of learning the past tenses of English verbs. Cognition 49, 235–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, B. & Leinbach, J. (1991). Implementations are not conceptualizations: revising the verb learning model. Cognition 40, 121–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. & Snow, C. (1985). The Child Language Data Exchange System. Journal of Child Language 12, 271–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, B. & Snow, C. (1990). The Child Language Data Exchange System: an update. Journal of Child Language 17, 457–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchman, V. (1988). Rules and regularities in the acquisition of the English past tense. Center for Research on Language Newsletter. University of California, San Diego, 2(4).Google Scholar
Marcus, G. F. (1993). Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition 46, 53–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, G. F. (in press). U-shaped language development in children and connectionist networks. Cognition.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. F., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., Hollander, M., Rosen, T. J. & Xu, F. (1992). Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 57 (4, Serial No. 228).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, G. F., Brinkmann, U., Clahsen, H., Wiese, R. & Pinker, S. (in press). German inflection: the exception that proves the rule. Cognitive PsychologyGoogle Scholar
Mencken, H. L. (1936) The American language. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984) The language instinct. New York: Morrow.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1991). Rules of language. Science 253, 530–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S. (1994). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition 28, 73–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plunkett, K. & Marchman, V. (1991). U-shaped learning and frequency effects in a multilayered perceptron: implications for child language acquisition. Cognition 38, 43–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plunkett, K. & Marchman, V. (1993) From rote learning to system building: acquiring verb morphology in children and connectionist nets. Cognition 48, 21–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prasada, S. & Pinker, S. (1993). Generalization of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes 8, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L. (1986). On learning the past tense of English verbs. In McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E. & The PDP Research Group, (eds), Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Vol. 2: Psychological and biological models. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. E. (1935). A study of some factors influencing the development of the sentence in preschool children. Journal of Genetic Psychology 46, 182–212.Google Scholar
Sproat, R. (1992). Morphology and computation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemberger, J. P. (1983). Inflectional malapropisms: form-based errors in English morphology. Linguistics 21, 573–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemberger, J. P. (1993). Vowel dominance in overregularizations. Journal of Child Language 20, 503–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stromswold, K. (1990). Learnability and the acquisition of auxiliaries. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. (1970). A double regularity in the acquisition of English verb morphology. Papers in Linguistics 3, 411–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar